ParvatPrakash
Hello, ParvatPrakash, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.
- Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
- Check out some of these pages:
- If you have a question that is not one of the frequently asked questions below, check out the Teahouse, ask me on my talk page, or click the button below. Happy editing and again, welcome! Rasnaboy (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Do a search on Google or your preferred search engine for the subject of the Wikipedia article that you want to create a citation for.
- Find a website that supports the claim you are trying to find a citation for.
- In a new tab/window, go to the citation generator, click on the 'An arbitrary website' bubble, and fill out as many fields as you can about the website you just found.
- Click the 'Get reference wiki text' button.
- Highlight, and then copy (Ctrl+C or Apple+C), the resulting text (it will be something like
<ref> {{cite web | .... }}</ref>, copy the whole thing). - In the Wikipedia article, after the claim you found a citation for, paste (Ctrl+V or Apple+V) the text you copied.
- If the article does not have a References or Notes section (or the like), add this to the bottom of the page, but above the External Links section and the categories:
==References==
{{Reflist}}
July 2024
Hi ParvatPrakash, kindly do not revert my changes at the Mahavira Wiki Page beacuse of your personal reasons that you've been struggling through last few months. The old image used is a very well known image of Mahavir Swami. If I wanted I could also have removed another Shwetambar tradition image from the page but I am a secular Jain scholar from Canada. Just refining Jainism for people here. Kindly do not spread sectarian supremerism. Peace. (talk • contribs) 07:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Any reverts are because of loss of information produced by your edits. Images are unimportant as long as they indicate the same person. However, deleting other information that you don't believe in is not acceptable. I'll keep your image as you say, but deleting any other information is vandalism. See Wikipedia:Vandalism ParvatPrakash (talk) 08:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- ParvatPrakash, as described in bold text by the introduction of the policy you've linked to, accusations of vandalism (malicious / intentional damage to the encyclopedia) are probably wrong here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I could have been wrong. Just noticed the details. However, User:Dennis Dijkstra deleted details about the spouse and children of Mahavira. These changes were without references. They seemed to be vandalising edits to me. So, to not engage in edit war with the user, I thought to keep the image same as suggested by them. However, unexplained deletion of information seemed unnecessary to me. I could very well be wrong here though. ParvatPrakash (talk) 08:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- ParvatPrakash, as described in bold text by the introduction of the policy you've linked to, accusations of vandalism (malicious / intentional damage to the encyclopedia) are probably wrong here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)ParvatPrakash (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I tried to discuss the reason with the user on their talk page. I have been trying to do that since yesterday. They keep changing the page without responding to my message on their talk page. I also warned them multiple times, but they did not respond with an answer. I have warned the said user over 5 times since yesterday.
Decline reason:
Once you have achieved consensus for your changes on the article talk page, but not before, you can ask for an unblock. Yamla (talk) 09:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Hi ParvatPrakash, the correct place for such a discussion is the article's talk page, and you can still edit that page. Please create a new section there explaining your preference. You can then use {{Please see}} at User talk:Be Jain to invite Be Jain to the discussion. I'd be surprised if this doesn't result in discussion, but if it really doesn't and you are really ignored, see WP:DISCFAIL for a helpful essay describing a way to proceed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: In your message on the article's talk page, please focus on the content. Do not directly address the other user, simply explain why you prefer your revision and why the other version is not acceptable. If possible, cite a policy or guideline supporting your view. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you so much. I didn't know about this policy. Still learning as I go. I'll keep in mind to discuss difference on the article's talk page instead of the user's. I think I just swayed cause I was warning them for the other disruptive edits they were making. Thanks again. ParvatPrakash (talk) 06:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- All good, no worries. Thank you very much for starting the discussion at Talk:Rishabhanatha#Image_of_the_subject; this is a very good start. Citing guideline sections, looks perfect to me. Of course, there may be disagreement about whether the guideline actually supports your image choice, and if you remain in disagreement, you may need a third opinion or a RfC. But that's not something to be done at the start, that's just an option one should keep in mind for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you so much. I didn't know about this policy. Still learning as I go. I'll keep in mind to discuss difference on the article's talk page instead of the user's. I think I just swayed cause I was warning them for the other disruptive edits they were making. Thanks again. ParvatPrakash (talk) 06:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
September 2024
Hello, I'm Cassiopeia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Hinduism and Jainism, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Cassiopeia talk 09:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, yes I did not provide a source because it was already present in the footnote to the section. It was also present in the reference at the end of the sentence I added. ParvatPrakash (talk) 09:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Preventing Edit War by asking for a discussion on the topic of Girnar mountain September 2024
Hi. Your recent contribution to Girnar deserves a discussion before they can be published in my opinion. I have created a topic in Talk:Girnar page where you can find more information. I would advise you to please review it before reverting changes or submitting any edits related to that topic.
If you have you want to have further discussion of have any question you can also reach me at my talk page. Thanks. Tannaray68 (talk) 22:03, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sachiya Mata Temple, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Parmara. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Jainism page edit warring - Oct 25
Hi ParvatPrakash, I have been asking you continuously for discussion on talk page regarding your recent edits in History section of your Jainism page and engaging in edit war. 1. Your content is not in tune with the section of the page. The section simply mentions Jain poet Shrimad Rajchandra's contribution in colonial era.
2. There is no mention of Shrimad Rajchandra as a monk which you are stating. So there is no context in your lines.
3. In one of the comments, you mention that "largest sect" doesn't recognise "Shrimad Rajchandra sect". There is no mention of Shrimad Rajchandra sect so this again is out of context. Secondly, numerical strength of sects don't get them any authoritative power to recognise or reject others.
4. The sources you provided from Shrimad Rajchandra website have no mention about other sects. Mr. Yugbhushan's personal views are not Wikipedia's voice to be accepted in Jainism's history section. Please provide sources from academic scholarship.
5. Please refrain from deleting random lines. Livingstonshr (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- I have already rephrased my content. With all due respect, if you found anything controversial with my content, you should've ideally initiated the discussion on the talk page. Shrimad Rajchandra and his sect are related. If you mention one, you simply also refer to the other. His practices aren't accepted by other sects, and if you didn't know that, I can cite numerous sources from religious texts of all the historically recognized sects. Numerical strength is acceptable or not is not the point of discussion. Svetambara and Digambara are the only two historical sects. The rest are sects started later by laypersons. I did not delete random lines. One can simply not mention that Shrimad Rajchandra is revered without reliable sources. My point still stands. ParvatPrakash (talk) 15:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Your actions are clearly agenda driven, biased and sectarian in nature. You omitted a content which was present on the page since more than a decade, without any interest in gaining consensus. Shrimad Rajchandra and sect formed by his followers after him are not related. None of us are here to decide which sects are correct and which ones are not. The history section simply states his works and contributions. All notable saints have critics from other sects, Mr. Yugbhushan, whose personal opinion you cited is himself infamous for proclaiming himself "spiritual monarch" of Jainism. The purpose of Jainism page is only to give introductory information on notable people and places related to it and not to show one sect superior to another,or anyone's personal opinions. Kindly refrain from making any changes further. Thank You. Livingstonshr (talk) 16:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Warning for 3 RR
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Livingstonshr Livingstonshr (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)